From: "Marc Okrand" Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand Date: 29 Jun 1997 Subject: Re: Some quick questions... Neal Schermerhorn wrote in article <01bc8033$1d3dad40$88472399@dtorvtwg>... > I have a few unrelated questions for Dr. Okrand. I'll take these up one at a time (in separate responses). > 1) Does qajatlh mean anything? Some feel this is poor grammar. I'm not > sure what to think. Can jatlh take an object other than a language? The object of jatlh "speak" is that which is spoken. Thus, it's OK to say "speak a language," for example: tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon" (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it") But it's also OK to say "speak an address, speak a lecture," for example: SoQ Dajatlh "you speak an address" or, more colloquially, "you deliver an address" or "you make a speech" (SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it") To say simply: jatlh "he/she speaks" implies "he/she speaks it," where "it" is a language or a lecture or whatever. The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is the hearer/listener. Thus: qama'pu'vaD tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon to the prisoners" (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it") qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the prisoners" (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it") When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person object may be used. There are other examples of this sort of thing with other verbs. For example, someone undergoing the Rite of Ascension says: tIqwIj Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] my heart" (tIqwIj "my heart," Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] it") The pronominal prefix in this phrase is Sa-, which means "I [do something to] all of you" in such sentences as: Salegh "I see you [plural]" but when there's already an object (in this case, tIqwIj "my heart"), the "object" of the prefix is interpreted as the indirect object, so Sa- means "I [do something to] it for you" or the like. This, then, brings us back to your question. Since the object of jatlh is that which is spoken, and since "you" or "I" or "we" cannot be spoken (and therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first or second person is the indirect object. Which is a not very elegant way of saying that qajatlh means "I speak to you" or, more literally, perhaps "I speak it to you," where "it" is a language or a speech or whatever: qajatlh "I speak to you" Sajatlh "I speak to you [plural]" chojatlh "you speak to me" tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you" (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," qajatlh "I speak it to you") There's another wrinkle to this. The verb jatlh can also be used when giving direct quotations: tlhIngan jIH jatlh "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'" (tlhIngan "Klingon," jIH "I," jatlh "speak") jatlh tlhIngan jIH "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'" (With verbs of saying, such as jatlh, the phrase that is being said or cited may come before or after the verb.) If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used: tlhIngan jIH jIjatlh "I say, 'I am a Klingon'" (jIjatlh "I speak") tlhIngan jIH bIjatlh "you say, 'I am a Klingon'" (bIjatlh "you speak") There are instances where the pronominal prefix marks a big distinction in meaning: tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon" (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it") tlhIngan Hol bIjatlh "you say, 'Klingon language'" [that is "you say the phrase 'Klingon language'"] (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," bIjatlh "you speak") I realize that this answer to your "quick" question is probably too quick itself. It is not by any means a complete discussion of the several topics mentioned and I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be phrased. As a result, this answer may end up just raising other questions. qay'be'. We'll get to them as they come along. =========================================================================== From: "Marc Okrand" Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand Date: 29 Jun 1997 Subject: Re: Some quick questions... (2) Neal Schermerhorn wrote... > 2) Are there plans to release a complete Klingon Dictionary at any future > time? A more complete and easy-to-use Dictionary would be a very popular > item, I know. If letters to Simon + Schuster and Paramount would help > bring this about, you know you can count on us! I agree that a "complete" (or at least "as complete as possible") Klingon Dictionary would be a good thing to have. In fact, I'd been mulling over something sort of along those lines as a next project for me (and for Maltz, of course). There are currently, however, no official or concrete plans to come out with one, but as long as interest in Klingon (language and culture and history and so on) remains high (as it certainly is now), anything's possible. =========================================================================== From: "Marc Okrand" Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand Date: 29 Jun 1997 Subject: Re: Some quick questions...(3) Neal Schermerhorn wrote... > 3) Whatever possessed you to not 'pursue' the meaning of qIvon??? If > Maltz is awake, maybe you could ask him? Actually, I tried to "pursue" the meaning of qIvon. Maltz seemed a little reluctant to talk about it. (I'd say "embarrassed," but that word is entirely inappropriate to use in describing a Klingon.) The next time the bloodwine is flowing freely, I'll try to remember to bring it up again. But I've noticed that, for me, anyway, bloodwine and memory don't mix. =========================================================================== From: "Marc Okrand" Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand Date: 29 Jun 1997 Subject: Re: Tonight, this morning, etc. > Will Martin wrote in article > <01bc7b9b$1f4e3e20$7666c5cd@will>... > > Marc, > > > > How would you suggest we convey the terms "tonight", "this morning", etc. > > I was personally drawn toward sticking to time-centric terms rather than > > spacial-centric grammar and say {DaHjaj ram} and {DaHjaj po} rather than > > {ramvam} and {povam}, both because they didn't mix concepts of time and > > space and because it would naturally be extendable in the form of {wa'leS > > ram} or {wejHu' po}, while the use of {-vam} does not have that property. > > Meanwhile, in {HeghmeH QaQ jajvam}, you clearly showed that {-vam} works > > with time related terms. > > > > So, I'm open. What's your preference? > > > > charghwI' Regarding "tonight" and so forth, I'd go along with your suggestion: DaHjaj ram "tonight" (literally "today night" or "today's night") DaHjaj po "this morning" (literally "today morning" or "today's morning") DaHjaj pov "this afternoon" (literally "today afternoon" or "today's afternoon") DaHjaj DungluQ "this noon" (literally "today noon" or "today's noon") DaHjaj ramjep "this midnight" (literally "today midnight" or "today's midnight") DaHjaj pemjep "this midday" (literally "today midday" or "today's midday") (The phrases "this noon," "this midnight," and "this midday" are a little awkward in English -- we'd probably say "today at noon," "tonight at midnight," "today in the middle of the day" or something -- but in Klingon, they fall right into place.) In Klingon, you could even say DaHjaj pem "today's daytime," which would probably be typically contrasted with DaHjaj ram "today's night" (or "tonight"). wa'leS po "tomorrow morning," cha'leS po "the morning of the day after tomorrow" (literally "two-days-from-now morning"), and so on work quite nicely. Adding -vam "this" to most words designating fixed periods of time seems to be the only way to indicate "current." Thus the current year or "this year" is DISvam (referring, of course, to a Klingon year, or DIS), the current month or "this month" is jarvam (jar "[Klingon] month"), and the current week or "this week" is Hoghvam (Hogh "[Klingon] week"). There don't seem to be special words for "the current year" and so forth comparable to DaHjaj "the current day" or "today." DaHjaj seems to be formed of the adverbial DaH "now" plus the noun jaj "day," a unique type of formation as far as I know. It is perhaps by analogy to DISvam, jarvam, etc. -- all formed by simply adding a noun suffix to a noun -- that Klingons also refer to the current day as jajvam "this day" (jaj "day, period from dawn to dawn"). Though they both can be translated "today," DaHjaj and jajvam are not quite interchangeable. As the time element in a sentence, DaHjaj (and not jajvam) is used: DaHjaj romuluSngan vIHoHpu' "today I killed a Romulan" (DaHjaj "today," romuluSngan "Romulan," vIHoHpu' "I have killed him/her") As the subject of a sentence, on the other hand, jajvam is more typically found: nI' jajvam "this day is long" (nI' "[it] is long [in duration], jajvam "this day") though DaHjaj is not impossible: nI' DaHjaj "today is long" (nI' "[it] is long [in duration], DaHjaj "today") DaHjaj also behaves as a noun (as opposed to an adverbial element) in such noun-noun constructions as DaHjaj gheD "today prey" or "today's prey," a term often heard in Klingon restaurants with a meaning comparable to "catch of the day." Phrases such as jajvam po "this day morning" or "this morning" are not common, but they're not ungrammatical either. [[eof]]